Indonesian
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015-Nov

Treatment and prevention of pouchitis after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis.

Hanya pengguna terdaftar yang dapat menerjemahkan artikel
Masuk daftar
Tautan disimpan ke clipboard
Siddharth Singh
Andrea M Stroud
Stefan D Holubar
William J Sandborn
Darrell S Pardi

Kata kunci

Abstrak

BACKGROUND

Pouchitis occurs in approximately 50% of patients following ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for chronic ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to determine the efficacy and safety of medical therapies (including antibiotics, probiotics, and other agents) for prevention or treatment of acute or chronic pouchitis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 2014.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials of prevention or treatment of acute or chronic pouchitis in adults who underwent IPAA for ulcerative colitis were considered for inclusion.

METHODS

Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with clinical improvement or remission of pouchitis in patients with acute or chronic pouchitis, or the proportion of patients with no episodes of pouchitis after IPAA. The proportion of patients who developed at least one adverse event was a secondary outcome. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each dichotomous outcome.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies (517 participants) were included in the review. Four studies assessed treatment of acute pouchitis. One study (16 participants) compared ciprofloxacin and metronidazole; another (26 participants) compared metronidazole to budesonide enemas; another (18 participants) compared rifaximin to placebo; and the fourth study (20 participants) compared Lactobacillus GG to placebo. Four studies assessed treatment of chronic pouchitis. One study (19 participants) compared glutamine to butyrate suppositories; another (40 participants) compared bismuth enemas to placebo; and two studies (76 participants) compared VSL#3 to placebo. Five studies assessed prevention of pouchitis. One study (40 participants) compared VSL#3 to placebo; another (28 participants) compared VLS#3 to no treatment; one study (184 participants) compared allopurinol to placebo; another (12 participants) compared the probiotic Bifidobacterium longum to placebo; and one study (38 participants) compared tinidazole to placebo. Three studies were judged to be of high quality. Two studies were judged to be low quality and the quality of the other studies was unclear. Treatment of acute pouchitis: The results of one small study (16 participants) suggest that ciprofloxacin may be more effective than metronidazole for the treatment of acute pouchitis. One hundred per cent (7/7) of ciprofloxacin patients achieved remission at two weeks compared to 33% (3/9) of metronidazole patients. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to high risk of bias (no blinding) and very sparse data (10 events). There was no difference in the proportion of patients who had at least one adverse event (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.98). Adverse events included vomiting, dysgeusia or transient peripheral neuropathy. There were no differences between metronidazole and budesonide enemas in terms of clinical remission, clinical improvement or adverse events. Adverse events included anorexia, nausea, headache, asthenia, metallic taste, vomiting, paraesthesia, and depression. There were no differences between rifaximin and placebo in terms of clinical remission, clinical improvement, or adverse events. Adverse events included diarrhea, flatulence, nausea, proctalgia, vomiting, thirst, candida, upper respiratory tract infection, increased hepatic enzyme, and cluster headache. There was no difference in clinical improvement between Lactobacillus GG and placebo. The results of these studies are uncertain due to very low quality evidence. Treatment of chronic pouchitis: A pooled analysis of two studies (76 participants) suggests that VSL#3 may be more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission. Eighty-five per cent (34/40) of VLS#3 patients maintained remission at 9 to 12 months compared to 3% (1/36) of placebo patients (RR 20.24, 95% CI 4.28 to 95.81). A GRADE analysis indicated that the quality of evidence supporting this outcome was low due to very sparse data (35 events). Adverse events included abdominal cramps, vomiting and diarrhea. There was no difference in effectiveness between glutamine and butyrate suppositories for maintenance of remission. There was no difference in clinical improvement or adverse event rates between bismuth carbomer foam enemas and placebo. Adverse events included diarrhea, worsening symptoms, cramping, sinusitis, and abdominal pain. The results of these studies are uncertain due to very low quality evidence. Prevention of pouchitis: The results of one small study (40 participants) suggest that VSL#3 may be more effective than placebo for prevention of pouchitis. Ninety per cent (18/20) of VSL#3 patients had no episodes of acute pouchitis during the 12 month study compared to 60% (12/20) of placebo patients (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.21). A GRADE analysis indicated that the quality of evidence supporting this outcome was low due to very sparse data (30 events). Another small study (28 participants) found that VLS#3 was not more effective than no treatment for prevention of pouchitis. Bifidobacterium longum, allopurinol and tinidazole were not more effective than placebo for prevention of pouchitis. The results of these studies are uncertain due to very low quality evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

For acute pouchitis, very low quality evidence suggests that ciprofloxacin may be more effective than metronidazole. For chronic pouchitis, low quality evidence suggests that VSL#3 may be more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission. For the prevention of pouchitis, low quality evidence suggests that VSL#3 may be more effective than placebo. Well designed, adequately powered studies are needed to determine the optimal therapy for the treatment and prevention of pouchitis.

Bergabunglah dengan
halaman facebook kami

Database tanaman obat terlengkap yang didukung oleh sains

  • Bekerja dalam 55 bahasa
  • Pengobatan herbal didukung oleh sains
  • Pengenalan herbal melalui gambar
  • Peta GPS interaktif - beri tag herba di lokasi (segera hadir)
  • Baca publikasi ilmiah yang terkait dengan pencarian Anda
  • Cari tanaman obat berdasarkan efeknya
  • Atur minat Anda dan ikuti perkembangan berita, uji klinis, dan paten

Ketikkan gejala atau penyakit dan baca tentang jamu yang mungkin membantu, ketik jamu dan lihat penyakit dan gejala yang digunakan untuk melawannya.
* Semua informasi didasarkan pada penelitian ilmiah yang dipublikasikan

Google Play badgeApp Store badge